South Africa Ruling

Labour Court Johannesburg

Tshifhango and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (JR951/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 131 (25 April 2017)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the respondents have satisfied the requirements for leave to appeal by demonstrating reasonable prospects that another court could reach a different conclusion. Additionally, the matter raises an important question of law that warrants consideration by an appellate court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted and costs are to be costs in the appeal.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal granted; costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • Costs to be costs in the appeal.

02

Material facts

Parties

Tsakani Isabel Tshifhango

Applicant

Elizabeth Kuki Makhondo

Applicant

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Respondent

Director General: Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Regional Head: Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Acting Director Human Resources: Justice and Constitutional Development, Gauteng

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 23 March 2017.

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants opposed the application for leave to appeal, contending that the respondents have not shown reasonable prospects of success and that the judgment of the court a quo was correct on both the facts and the law.
Respondent
The respondents argued that there are reasonable prospects that another court could reach a different conclusion and that the matter raises important questions of law which merit consideration on appeal.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Westing House Break and Equipment (Pty) Ltd v Bilger Engineering (Pty) Ltd 1986 (2) SA 555 (A)

    Leave to appeal should be granted if there are reasonable prospects of success or if the matter raises important questions of law.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the respondents have satisfied the requirements for leave to appeal by demonstrating reasonable prospects that another court could reach a different conclusion. Additionally, the matter raises an important question of law that warrants consideration by an appellate court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted and costs are to be costs in the appeal.

Obiter and limits

  • The court noted that it is not necessary to repeat the parties' submissions in detail, as the central issue is whether the requirements for leave to appeal have been met.
  • The court emphasized the importance of allowing appeals in matters of public or legal significance, as established in precedent.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal granted; costs to be costs in the appeal.

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • Costs to be costs in the appeal.

Source and reliance status

Labour Court Johannesburg

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Labour Court Johannesburg

Ruling

[2017] ZALCJHB 131

THE

LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

JOHANNESBURG

Not reportable

Case no: JR 951/16

TSAKANI

ISABEL

TSHIFHANGO

First Applicant

ELIZABETH

KUKI MAKHONDO

Second

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER

OF JUSTICE AND

CORRECTIONAL

SERVICES

First Respondent

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL: JUSTICE AND

CONSTITUTIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

Second Respondent

THE REGIONAL HEAD: JUSTICE AND

CONSTITUTIONAL

DEVELOPMENT Third Respondent

THE ACTING DIRECTOR HUMAN RESOURCES:

Fourth Respondent

JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT,

GAUTENG

Decided: In Chambers

Judgment: 25 April 2017

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO

APPEAL

PRINSLOO J.

[1] The Respondents filed an application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order of this Court handed down on 23 March 2017.

[2] The application for leave to appeal is opposed and both parties filed comprehensive written submissions.

[3] I have considered the grounds for appeal as raised by the Respondents as well as the submissions made in support and in opposition thereof and I do not intend to repeat those herein.

[4] It is trite that in order to be entitled to leave to appeal, an applicant in the application for leave to appeal must satisfy this Court that it has reasonable prospects of success on appeal and that based on the facts and the law another court could arrive at a conclusion different than the one reached by the Court a quo.

[5] Suffice to say that after due consideration of the application for leave to appeal, I am satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect that another court could arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by this Court. Furthermore, I am also of the view that there is an important question of law that should be decided and that requires the appeal to be heard. In Westing House Break and Equipment (Pty) Ltd v Bilger Engineering (Pty) Ltd[1] the court stated that an appeal should be allowed where the matter is of great importance or where the matter is of public importance or where the court is of the view that the decision might affect other questions.

Order

[6] I therefore make the following order:

6.1 Leave to appeal is granted.

6.2 Costs to be costs in the appeal.

______

Connie Prinsloo

Judge of the Labour Court

[1] 1986 (2) SA 555 (A)

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Westing House Break and Equipment (Pty) Ltd v Bilger Engineering (Pty) Ltd 1986 (2) SA 555 (A)

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.